Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 174 of 174

Thread: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

  1. #161
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by montana View Post
    All those who participated in the trials preferred it for its better handling and faster follow up shots. Ian even stated the slight difference in weight and length felt much better than it would seem on paper. I guess the true test would be to shoot them side by side.
    I'm not questioning the perceived difference in handling.

    I'm saying the difference in length is negligible, so small that it can barely be discerned even when the rifles are side-by-side.

    There's no way in Hell that Ian could feel the tiny difference in length. What he is actually noticing is the difference in weight.

    Nominal weight of the T3E2 is the same as the M14, which is actually a bit longer than the M1, but handles noticeably better.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  2. #162
    Chieftain montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    live in Montana
    Posts
    1,661
    No argument here. I love my old M1A1 and I took first place a few years ago with it in our local heavy metal multigun competition. I competed against an FN FAL, HK-91 and many AR-10's. I'm not saying I would want to hump a lot of miles with it but I do enjoy shooting it.

  3. #163
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by montana View Post
    No argument here. I love my old M1A1 and I took first place a few years ago with it in our local heavy metal muligun competition. I competed against an FN FAL, HK-91 and many AR-10's. I'm not saying I would want to hump a lot of miles with it but I do enjoy shooting it.
    Ditto. My M1A was one of two rifles I liked over all others, the other being an M1 carbine I had about 40 years ago.
    Regrettably, I panicked and sold the M1A the week before California's assault weapons law took effect back in 2000.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  4. #164
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    845
    I just skimmed the Wikipedia discussion of the 276 Pedersen.

    Two things became clear.

    First, the rifle appears to have been discontinued for valid technical reasons.

    Second, the cartridge was effectively vetoed by Macarthur's decision to use the 30-06.

    I am one of those who feel tha this was only one of multiple bad decisions by our senior leadership that ultimately cost our country dearly during Wold War II.

    One could further speculate the precise rationale for the '06 decision, but the pattern continues even today. The military procurement system is loathe to implement new small arms cartridges. I suspect that the folks moving recommendations up the ladder did not fully appreciate the ammunition consumption that using semi-automatic battle rifles would cause.
    shootersnotes.com

    "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
    -- Author Unknown

    "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

  5. #165
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by JASmith View Post
    I am one of those who feel tha this was only one of multiple bad decisions by our senior leadership that ultimately cost our country dearly during Wold War II.
    I am not one who shares the view that it was a "bad" decision, because the .276 Garand offered only marginal improvement in weight and ammo capacity compared to the .30 M1 rifle.
    IMO, the bad decision was to develop a clip-fed, semi-auto battle rifle to replace a clip-fed, bolt-action battle rifle, instead of creating a mag-fed assault rifle and intermediate cartridge.

    The Garand rifle -- in either caliber -- was truly a classic example of "designing for the last war," instead of the war that was to come; preparing for trench warfare, instead of blitzkrieg.
    With just a little bit of vision, the US Army could have opted for a two-caliber system, keeping .30-06 for machine guns, and developing a cartridge similar to 7.62x39 for assault rifles.



    If designed for such a cartridge, the resulting Garand assault rifle could've been at least 8 inches shorter and 2 pounds lighter than the M1 rifle, with almost 4 times the ammo capacity.

    Last edited by stanc; 09-14-2017 at 06:25 PM.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    I am not one who shares the view that it was a "bad" decision, because the .276 Garand offered only marginal improvement in weight and ammo capacity compared to the .30 M1 rifle.
    IMO, the bad decision was to develop a clip-fed, semi-auto battle rifle to replace a clip-fed, bolt-action battle rifle, instead of creating a mag-fed assault rifle and intermediate cartridge.

    The Garand rifle -- in either caliber -- was truly a classic example of "designing for the last war," instead of the war that was to come; preparing for trench warfare, instead of blitzkrieg.
    With just a little bit of vision, the US Army could have opted for a two-caliber system, keeping .30-06 for machine guns, and developing a cartridge similar to 7.62x39 for assault rifles.



    If designed for such a cartridge, the resulting Garand assault rifle could've been at least 8 inches shorter and 2 pounds lighter than the M1 rifle, with almost 4 times the ammo capacity.

    Supposedly were looking at a future conflict with a major peer nation with these new rifles, but for some reason it just spells Afghanistan.

  7. #167
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Joglee View Post
    Supposedly were looking at a future conflict with a major peer nation with these new rifles, but for some reason it just spells Afghanistan.
    How so? The official reason for wanting the ICSR is to defeat modern hard body armor, which is not used by the enemy in Afghanistan.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    How so? The official reason for wanting the ICSR is to defeat modern hard body armor, which is not used by the enemy in Afghanistan.
    Because they're wanting one gun that can be employed as a Carbine, IAR, and DMR in 7.62.

    I just don't see it holding up to a peer nation employing a whole host of SCHV rifles mixed with large caliber rifles.

    But it's the future the Army wants and they'll get it.

  9. #169
    Warrior grayfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    198
    Very interesting history discussion!
    Never heard of the 276 pederson before, but I could see where one aspect would work against it, and that's all the machinery tooling changes you'd have to do vice 30-cal (not that I'm a 30 cal fanboy)... but foundries and tool/dies just for the barrels, if you can avoid those changeover costs, that's one advantage I'd think 1930's bean counters would go for...
    But I'm enjoying this thread and all the discussion, learning a lot.
    Regarding the bomber factory... I might suspect that it could be part of a reaction to the 36 war in Spain. I believe I've read where lots of elites and maybe Congress were at first enamored with Mussolini and Fascism (in the 20's) but then you see their "pre-season" game of war in the Spanish revolution... could have made somebody think that maybe we should be preparing more than we had been...
    Just throwing out a couple possibilities.
    Many times I think the bureaucrats are too afraid to plan for the war we might realistically see, instead they prepare for the last war, that's easy to see!!!

  10. #170
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    845
    Having spent some time in the weapons R&D business, I understand the bean counter issues all too well.

    I can also say that I was hugely frustrated during the '70s and '80s that ALL of the non-nuclear wepons development focused on the Fulda Gap scenario with none directed at the then 'Last War - Viet Nam". We threw away a vast store of corporate experience that would have served our nation well in every engagement except the roll-over of Saddam's forces.

    I can also say that the 'Fulda Gap' weapons and doctrine did very well there. I also grudgingly admit that that overwhelming crush of what was publicized as the world's strongest army short of the US or Soviet Union helped with deterrence in the larger sense.

    Nonetheless, a balance of emphasis between 'large war" and continued COIN weaons technology, tactics and doctrine might have placed our national leadership in a better position to make wiser decisions in response to 9/11.
    shootersnotes.com

    "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
    -- Author Unknown

    "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

  11. #171
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Joglee View Post
    Because they're wanting one gun that can be employed as a Carbine, IAR, and DMR in 7.62.
    Still not seeing how that "just spells Afghanistan."

    The stated reason for wanting 7.62 weapons is body armor defeat, which has not been an issue in Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joglee View Post
    I just don't see it holding up to a peer nation employing a whole host of SCHV rifles mixed with large caliber rifles.
    Since war against a peer nation seems rather unlikely, I doubt that it will matter what caliber weapons are used.

    But, if such a war were to happen, is it possible that 7.62 AP versus 5.45 AP might give the edge to our guys?
    Last edited by stanc; 09-18-2017 at 05:34 PM.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  12. #172
    What makes you think peer nations won't be using 5.45 AP? Russia and China control the majority of the world's Tungsten supply.

  13. #173
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Joglee View Post
    What makes you think peer nations won't be using 5.45 AP? Russia and China control the majority of the world's Tungsten supply.
    Well, ya got me there. I guess I shouldn't try to write and watch TV at the same time...

    Correction made.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  14. #174
    Chieftain montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    live in Montana
    Posts
    1,661

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •